that if the company refused to transport Fields solely because he was black, he should be awarded
damages.7 As a result of Field's victory, municipal transit in Baltimore was integrated.8

Other forms of transport were not so easily integrated. In Cully v. Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad.9 Maryland plaintiffs sued the railroad for forcing them to ride in separate and inferior
accommodations. They were represented by Archibald Stirling, Jr., who argued that the new
Civil Rights Act of 1875 entitled them to damages. Judge Giles distinguished his earlier
decisions in Thompson and Fields on the grounds that they arose in diversity jurisdiction. He
then cited The Slaughterhouse Cases10 for the proposition that rights to travel on a railroad were
a privilege of state citizenship rather than a privilege of citizens of the United States.
Consequently, he held, the Act of Congress "so far as it seeks to inflict penalties for the violation
of any or all rights which belong to citizens of a state, and not to citizens of the United States as
such, was the exercise of a power not authorized by any provision of the constitution of the
United States."11

The Cully decision meant that any redress for unequal treatment by common carriers must
be sought in state courts, now controlled by unsympathetic democratic judges. The only avenue
providing hope was federal suit where diversity of citizenship could be found. In 1884, four
women members of the Reverend Harvey Johnson's congregation were forced to move to second
class accommodations on the Steamer Sue during a church outing. The steamer was owned by a
Virginia company, and Reverend Johnson obtained the services of Stirling and attorney
Alexander Hobbs to bring a damage suit on his parishioners behalf in federal court. Judge
Morris, following the decisions in Fields and Thompson, held that the ship had no right to
provide inferior accommodations on the basis of race to persons paying the same fare.12

The limitations of Moms' opinion in The Steamer Sue were revealed a few years later.
Reverend Robert McGuinn, a black minister from Annapolis, purchased a ticket in 1887 on the
steamer Mason Weems for travel to Virginia. He sat down for supper at a table reserved for
white passengers. The white passengers refused to come to dinner when they saw McGuinn
seated there. The captain asked him to move to another table, but he refused to budge. The
captain then asked the white passengers to take another table. One of the passengers later
assaulted McGuinn, and threats were made to throw the minister overboard. The captain told the
passengers to leave McGuinn alone; but, fearing for his safety, Reverend McGuinn left the vessel
before it arrived at his destination. McGuinn hired Everett J. Waring, the first black lawyer in
Maryland, to sue the captain and owners of the ship for damages based on mistreatment. Judge
Morris dismissed the complaint. Citing The Steamer Sue. Morris said that when persons pay
first class fare, the carrier must make "a bona fide effort" to furnish the same accommodations
regardless of race. Nevertheless, Morris said, "When public sentiment demands a separation of
the passengers, it must be gratified to some extent."13

The result of these cases was to leave segregation within the discretion of the
transportation companies. In municipal railways where blacks constituted only a small
proportion of the customers and single cars were involved, separate facilities were not

108